China S Intellectual Property Rights And Indigenous Innovation Policy

Today's hearing of the U.S.-China Commission focuses on two broad areas in the U.S.-China relationship: the treatment of intellectual property rights, including business software, computers, Internet streaming, recent WTO actions brought by the U.S. against China in this area; and second, the Chinese policy of indigenous innovation, so-called ININ, and its wide-ranging implications for our economic and strategic relationship. The question is, where do we stand on these matters ten years after China's accession to the WTO and assumptions of obligations in WTO, and the U.S. granting China Permanent Most Favored Nation treatment?

Intellectual property rights (IPR) infringement in China reduces market opportunities and undermines the profitability of U.S. firms when sales of products and technologies are undercut by competition from illegal, lower-cost imitations. Intellectual property (IP) is often the most valuable asset that a company holds, but many companies, particularly smaller ones, lack the resources and expertise necessary to protect their IP in China. 'Indigenous innovation' policies, which promote the development, commercialization, and purchase of Chinese products and technologies, may also be disadvantaging U.S. and other foreign firms and creating new barriers to foreign direct investment (FDI) and exports to China. This is the first of two reports requested by the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance (Committee) on the effects of IPR infringement and indigenous innovation policies in China on U.S. jobs and the U.S. economy. In this report, the U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) was requested to describe the principal types of reported IPR infringement in China, describe Chinese indigenous innovation policies, and outline an analytic framework for determining the effects of both IPR infringement and indigenous innovation policies on the U.S.

This open access book analyses intellectual property codification and innovation governance in the development of six key industries in India and China. These industries are reflective of the innovation and economic development of the two economies, or of vital importance to them: the IT Industry; the film industry; the pharmaceutical industry; plant varieties and food security; the automobile industry; and peer production and the sharing economy. The analysis extends beyond the domain of IP law, and includes economics and policy analysis. The overarching concern that cuts through all chapters is an inquiry into why certain industries have developed in one country and not in the other, including: the role that state innovation policy and/or IP policy played in such development; the nature of the state innovation policy/IP policy; and whether such policy has been causal, facilitating, crippling, co-relational, or simply irrelevant. The book asks what India and China can learn from each other, and whether there is any possibility of synergy. The book provides a real-life understanding of how IP laws interact with innovation and economic development in the six selected economic sectors in China and India. The reader can also draw lessons from the success or failure of these sectors.

This study’s statistical analysis shows that patent quality and innovation in China deserve improvement, and an in-depth legal, management science, and economic analysis in the study shows that various patent-related policies and practices actually hamper patent quality and innovation in China. Over 50 recommendations for reform are provided. The study is divided into four chapters, summaries of which are as follows: Although China became the world leader in quantity of domestically filed patent applications in 2011, the quality of these patents needs improvement. Also, while certain innovation in China is rising, the country’s actual innovation appears over-hyped by some sources. There appears to be an overly heavy focus on government-set quantitative patent targets in China, which can hamper patent quality and innovation. This overemphasis involves over 10 national-level and over 150 municipal/provincial quantitative patent targets, mostly to be met by 2015, which are also linked to performance evaluations for SoEs, Party officials and government ministries, universities and research institutes, and other entities. China has a wide-range of other policies, many of which are at least partially meant to encourage patents, that can actually discourage quality patents, and highest-quality patents in particular, and innovation. Examples of these policies include a variety of measures with requirements for “indigenous intellectual property rights” that are linked to financial incentives (many of which are unrelated to government procurement); a range of other government-provided financial incentives for patent development (e.g. certain patent filing subsidies); inappropriate inventor remuneration rules; discriminatory standardization approaches; and a wide range of others. There are a host of concerns surrounding rules and procedures for patent application review and those for enforcement of patent disputes that can hamper building of quality patents and innovation in China. These include concerns about abuse of patent rights, difficulties invalidating utility models, and a wide range of other issues.

This book evaluates the risks that China’s intellectual property (IP) regime poses to innovation. China's IP regime has been heavily criticized as potentially stifling innovation. However, the country’s innovation capabilities have risen significantly and major reforms have recently been made to its IP regime. How risky, really, is China's IP regime for innovation? This book investigates this question at different units of analysis based on a multidisciplinary assessment involving law, management, economics, and political science. Specifically, it critically appraises China's substantive IP laws, measures for boosting patent quantity and quality, measures for transmitting and exploiting technological knowledge, new experimental IP measures, and China's systems for administering and enforcing IP. Practitioners and scholars from various backgrounds can benefit from the up-to-date analysis as well as the practical managerial tools provided, including risk assessment matrices for businesses and recommendations for institutional reform.